07-12-2024, 08:41 PM
Hi everyone! I would like to know your opinions on some observations about this diagram.
![[Image: image.jpg?ref=f85r2_f86v6&q=f85r2_f86v6-...03-100-100]](https://www.voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?ref=f85r2_f86v6&q=f85r2_f86v6-418-305.3333282470703-100-100)
Please look at the Beinecke version as this one isn't very clear: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So here is my main question: Were the unpainted parts of the pointing arm always meant to be unpainted, or were they once painted and the paint has come off?
I think I see some parallel hatching or possibly a peppled design in there as well, the latter especially on the top and bottom pair, which makes my opinion that these are important details that were left unpainted for a reason. I am speaking of the rhomboid or upsidedown triangle shape on the pointing shoulder which has opposing triangle tips to the right (sleeve edge) and below. The sleeve edge part is similar to the other figures, likely either piping or reinforcement of some kind on the edge, or where the ribbed edge would be on something knitted, as on the neck edge, but there is a c or partial circle in the unpainted section of this one, and a similar mark at the end of the other sleeve.
Also, are we in agreement that this is a right hand? Perhaps two right arms? One reaching over, that is why it is shorter? I believe bi3mw and Koen G mentioned this already.
I am not convinced that the figure originally had one arm, but agree that it is certainly a good candidate for applying depainting techniques to see better what was drawn. Of course, the other hand is not visible, perhaps the hands were swapped, and still actually has only one of each. Or perhaps because the one is hidden, they figured they could get away with it.
This one is ambiguous in terms of numbers of fingers, could be anywhere from four to six, i guess, depending on how far back the fingers are curled. I guess I can only see four of them. Seems to be wearing the ring on the third finger. I think the hand is a right one not only because the ring is shown, since it could be worn to the inside, but also because the fingers seem to be curled back.
The figure we are discussing, as well as the one opposite blue sweater man also have blue sweaters. Notice there is asymmetry with most of them, seems like batwing sleeves on one side only for some, maybe all? Was that ever a thing in those days? Seems significant. The figure on the bottom seems different, seems like more of a dress or long sleeveless tunic in a lighter bluegreen, worn over a blue sweater.
I agree they are similar but different to the nymphs. Firstly, they are clothed. This could tie them to the clothed nymphs in the zodiac section. I have to stop myself from saying him or he in describing some of them, as some do still have what seems like breasts, or their doppelgangers in the other drawings do. Not sure what that is all about. This one does seem like a he, only the bottom one seems like a she to me.
I do think the ring on this figure might be connected to the large rings in quire 13, but its size seems so small in comparison, which allows for the wearing of it. However we are in another quire and as Koen has mentioned, these do seem different. I have a theory about the six fingers that is related to Bible quotes that include possible references to giants. This could explain the size difference, but I will save the details of how that might work for my own thread.
With regard to the nose, it does seem different from the others. I have possible explanations that again I will save for my own thread.
With regard to the hair, I agree it seems male-ish.
Any other observations on this or the other figures on this page that should be considered?
Please look at the Beinecke version as this one isn't very clear: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So here is my main question: Were the unpainted parts of the pointing arm always meant to be unpainted, or were they once painted and the paint has come off?
I think I see some parallel hatching or possibly a peppled design in there as well, the latter especially on the top and bottom pair, which makes my opinion that these are important details that were left unpainted for a reason. I am speaking of the rhomboid or upsidedown triangle shape on the pointing shoulder which has opposing triangle tips to the right (sleeve edge) and below. The sleeve edge part is similar to the other figures, likely either piping or reinforcement of some kind on the edge, or where the ribbed edge would be on something knitted, as on the neck edge, but there is a c or partial circle in the unpainted section of this one, and a similar mark at the end of the other sleeve.
Also, are we in agreement that this is a right hand? Perhaps two right arms? One reaching over, that is why it is shorter? I believe bi3mw and Koen G mentioned this already.
(07-05-2017, 08:54 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.RE: The "4 Ages of Man" Folio
By the way, the position of the left man's arm is very....strange.
(07-05-2017, 10:23 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.RE: The "4 Ages of Man" Folio
The Voynich figure... originally only the pointing arm was visible. It's his proper right arm, that goes across the body just like in the comparison you posted. I don't know how the extra arm got added, but it's clear that the mess has been hidden under thick blue paint.
I am not convinced that the figure originally had one arm, but agree that it is certainly a good candidate for applying depainting techniques to see better what was drawn. Of course, the other hand is not visible, perhaps the hands were swapped, and still actually has only one of each. Or perhaps because the one is hidden, they figured they could get away with it.
This one is ambiguous in terms of numbers of fingers, could be anywhere from four to six, i guess, depending on how far back the fingers are curled. I guess I can only see four of them. Seems to be wearing the ring on the third finger. I think the hand is a right one not only because the ring is shown, since it could be worn to the inside, but also because the fingers seem to be curled back.
(20-12-2016, 08:37 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. RE: [split] Scepter/ Fleur de Lys/ Blue Sweater Man
I find this section of the manuscript very hard to interpret in terms of how the image evolved and where and when it's from. These folios have the most medieval air about them, in my opinion, together with the rosettes foldout. I'm not sure of much, so only some loose comments:
- Last time I mentioned this people disagreed, but I insist that he has six fingers.
- I have come to understand that hair style is the best indicator for gender. This is the Voynich male hair style. The breast could be some awkwardly drawn piece of his clothing, or like JKP says some basic Voynich androgyny. It is indeed true that in some Roman era work, for example, it is hard to see the difference between breast and pectoral muscles. Add in a confused copyist and you've got a bunch of men with boobs.
- I'm having a hard time connecting figures like this one to for example Q13. Yes, the style has been equalized, but the way the face is drawn... it still looks and feels different.
The figure we are discussing, as well as the one opposite blue sweater man also have blue sweaters. Notice there is asymmetry with most of them, seems like batwing sleeves on one side only for some, maybe all? Was that ever a thing in those days? Seems significant. The figure on the bottom seems different, seems like more of a dress or long sleeveless tunic in a lighter bluegreen, worn over a blue sweater.
I agree they are similar but different to the nymphs. Firstly, they are clothed. This could tie them to the clothed nymphs in the zodiac section. I have to stop myself from saying him or he in describing some of them, as some do still have what seems like breasts, or their doppelgangers in the other drawings do. Not sure what that is all about. This one does seem like a he, only the bottom one seems like a she to me.
I do think the ring on this figure might be connected to the large rings in quire 13, but its size seems so small in comparison, which allows for the wearing of it. However we are in another quire and as Koen has mentioned, these do seem different. I have a theory about the six fingers that is related to Bible quotes that include possible references to giants. This could explain the size difference, but I will save the details of how that might work for my own thread.
With regard to the nose, it does seem different from the others. I have possible explanations that again I will save for my own thread.
With regard to the hair, I agree it seems male-ish.
Any other observations on this or the other figures on this page that should be considered?